DRUG WAR DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING DOWN PLANES

An American Baptist missionary and her infant daughter were killed 2
1/2 years ago when a Peruvian air force pilot shot down a small plane
- -- even after U.S. intelligence monitors expressed doubts that the
craft might not be used by drug-runners, as first suspected.

That led to a suspension of such flights in Peru and Colombia and an
admonition by a Senate committee that they not resume until strict
safeguards were in place to avoid a tragic recurrence. At the time,
the committee recommended the shoot-down policy be reconsidered.
That's still good advice.

Now, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says the Bush administration
supports a Colombian plan to use deadly force in drug interdiction
flights. The New York Times quotes officials who say a resumption is
likely in Peru, too.

Congress must demand a thorough briefing on exactly what's planned.
That's especially important in light of an apparent shift of virtually
all responsibility for interdiction to Colombia, thus effectively
immunizing the U.S. government against lawsuits if any U.S. citizens
are harmed.

Why is it necessary to shoot down a plane based on assumptions?
Forcing a plane to land is preferable when innocent lives might be at
stake and the plane poses no imminent danger to anyone. The war on
drugs can be fought without resorting to shoot-first,
ask-questions-later tactics.

A recent United Nations report says that during a period roughly
coinciding with the suspension of drug interdiction flights, plantings
of coca -- the raw material for cocaine -- in Colombia have fallen by
30 percent. Seizures of processed cocaine have increased by a
comparable figure. That's encouraging, and reinforces the principle
that taking deadly action on the basis of profiling and suspicions is
not justified.